1985 (3) TMI 316 - SC - Indian Laws

Court distinguishes licensor/licensee from landlord/tenant, grants mandatory injunction for possession surrender upon license termination.

The Additional District Judge determined that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant. The court ... - Issues:- Interpretation of lease agreement and license deed- Nature of relationship between parties- Maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction- Effect of subsequent property purchase by respondent- Applicability of East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act, 1949- Legal rights and obligations of licensor and licensee- Delay in filing suit and remedy soughtInterpretation of lease agreement and license deed:The plaintiff, who became the sole owner of the property in 1967, had leased a plot of land to the defendant under a license deed for one year. The trial court initially found the defendant to be a sub-tenant and dismissed the suit. However, the Additional District Judge overturned this decision, concluding that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant. The absence of rent mentioned in the documents and the revocation of the license supported this finding.Nature of relationship between parties:The dispute centered around whether the defendant was a sub-tenant or a licensee. The trial court's initial ruling favored the defendant, but the Additional District Judge determined that the plaintiff was the lessee and the defendant was a licensee. This distinction was crucial in deciding the maintainability of the suit for a mandatory injunction.Maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction:The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to evict the defendant from the premises. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the suit was maintainable as the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee. The court also found no undue delay in filing the suit, thereby granting the injunction.Effect of subsequent property purchase by respondent:The respondent later purchased the property from its original owner, leading to a contention that the appellant could not eject the respondent based on the sale deed. The High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant's rights under the lease could not be interfered with by the sale and that the respondent, as a licensee, must surrender possession upon revocation of the license.Applicability of East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act, 1949:The appellant argued that the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 protected his tenancy rights. However, the court held that even under the Act, the licensee must surrender possession upon revocation of the license, and the appellant could seek possession of the property.Legal rights and obligations of licensor and licensee:The court established that the respondent, as a licensee, had a duty to surrender possession upon termination of the license. Failure to do so entitled the licensor to seek recovery of possession. The court emphasized that the respondent could not set up title to the property during the subsistence of the license.Delay in filing suit and remedy sought:The court noted that there was no significant delay in filing the suit for a mandatory injunction. Emphasizing the need to avoid multiplicity of suits, the court held that the suit, though framed as a mandatory injunction, was essentially a claim for possession. The appellant was entitled to the relief sought, and the respondent was directed to deliver possession of the property.